Eruvin 73a — the Talmud in English

Rav said: ![](pamud.bmp "

")

the place of eating

[eating].

And Shmuel said: the place of lodging.

A challenge was raised against

Rav, who said that the place of eating determines:

For it was taught in a beraita:

the shepherds

in the fields outside the city,

and the fig-watchers

[the guardians of figs spread out to dry] outside the city,

and the burganim

[the city-watchmen],

and the guardians of produce

outside the city—

when their practice is to lodge in the city, they are like the inhabitants of the city

with regard to the techum of Shabbat, for the entire city is considered for them as four cubits, and they have from the city two thousand cubits in every direction.

But

when their practice is to lodge in the field—

they have

from the place of their lodging

two thousand

cubits

in every direction.

We see, then, that even though they eat in the city, they follow the place of their lodging, and not the place of eating, contrary to Rav?! And we answer:

There, we are certain that if they were to bring them bread there

[if they were to bring them bread to the field, at the place of their lodging]—

it would be more agreeable to them

[it would be preferable for them for the place of their eating to be there, since it is also the place of their lodging].

Rav Yosef said

after he became ill and forgot his learning:

I have not heard this teaching

of Rav, who said that the place of eating determines.

Abaye said to him: You told us

Rav’s teaching,

and you told us this:

Concerning that which we learned in our Mishna:

brothers who were eating at their father’s table and sleeping in their houses—

require an eruv for each and every one.

And we said to you

[as we said in the Gemara above]:

learn from this that the place of lodging determines

and therefore each and every one requires an eruv, for in their lodging they are separate.

And you said to us concerning it: Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

It is not speaking of those eating together in their father’s house, but rather

they taught it concerning those who receive a portion.

But generally, the place of eating determines [as we rejected in the Gemara above].

The Sages taught: One who has five wives,

each of whom has an apartment in a courtyard and

receives a portion

[food expenses]

from her husband, and five

[or five]

slaves receive a portion from their master.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava dispute whether each and every one requires an eruv.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira permits—

he does not require an eruv for each and every one—

in the case of wives.

And he forbids in the case of slaves.

Because the wives are drawn after their husbands, since they receive a portion from him; they are like him, as his own body, and they are also drawn one after another, so that they should not forbid one another, since the husband combines them.

But slaves are not so entirely attached to the master, nor to one another [Ritva; see further there].

Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava

holds the opposite, and he

permits in the case of slaves and forbids in the case of wives,

for slaves are like his household, whereas this is not so with wives [Ritva].

Rav said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava?

For it is written: “And Daniel at the king’s gate”

[sitting at the king’s gate].

Thus, even though he did not sit at the gate all day, Scripture treated him as one who sat there, since he received a portion from him, and he was his attendant and slave [Ritva in understanding Rashi].

It is obvious

to us:

a son with his father

has, with regard to an eruv,

the law that we said

in our Mishna.

A wife with her husband, and a slave with his master,

it is also obvious to us that, with regard to an eruv, it is

the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava,

as was explained in the Gemara above.

And we inquire:

A student

who dwells

with his teacher

in one courtyard, in a separate house, and receives a portion from his teacher—

what is the law?

Come and hear: Rav,

when he was a student

at the house of Rabbi Hiyya,

his uncle,

said: We do not need to make an eruv, for we

rely on Rabbi Hiyya’s table!

And Rabbi Hiyya,

when he was a student

at the house of Rabbi, said: We do not need to make an eruv, for we rely on Rabbi’s table!

Abaye asked Rabba:

Five

who dwelled in one courtyard,

who collected their eruv,

and came to make an eruv with another courtyard,

when

they

carry their eruv to another place,

that is, when they make a joint eruv with another courtyard and place it in the other courtyard—is it

one eruv for all of them

or do they require an eruv for each and every one?

He said to him,

Rabba to Abaye:

one eruv for all of them.

And we raise a difficulty from our Mishna:

But the brothers, who, since

the five who

collected

their eruv

are comparable to them,

for we see in the Mishna that if there are no other residents with them, they do not forbid one another; evidently they are considered as though they had collected an eruv among themselves.

And

nevertheless

it teaches

in the Mishna:

they require

an eruv for each and every one

if they carry their eruv to another place.

And it was initially understood that what the Mishna teaches, “they carry their eruv to another place,” means when there are no other residents with them, and they carry the eruv to another courtyard.

It must be, then, that even in the case of five who collected [an eruv], when they carry it to another place, an eruv is required for each and every one; and this is a difficulty against Rabba, who said: one eruv for all of them!

And we reject this:

What are we dealing with here? With a case where there are

other

with them,

in that courtyard, and they carry an eruv to another courtyard; or even where they made an eruv with those residents and carry the eruv to the house of another resident in the courtyard.

Since this is so, one cannot learn from here concerning our case.

For this case is different,

since, because these

[the other residents]

forbid,

and must contribute an eruv,

these

[the five brothers]

also forbid.

But if there are no other residents with them, and they come to place an eruv in another place altogether, they do not require an eruv for each and every one, but rather one eruv for all of them.

This too is reasonable

that the reason for the Mishna is because of the principle of “since”:

For it teaches

in the conclusion of the Mishna:

When

they require an eruv for each and every one—

when they carry their eruv to another place.

But if their eruv was brought to them.

Or if there are no residents with them in the courtyard—

they do not need to make an eruv.

Thus there is a distinction between a case where there are other residents, in which we say, “since these forbid, these also forbid,” and a case where there are no other residents.

And we conclude:

learn from this

[and see the Ritva, who raised a difficulty: what is the meaning of “this too is reasonable” that we say, when it is compelled; see there].

Rav Hiyya bar Avin asked Rav Sheshet: The sons of the house of Rav

[the students of the academy]

who eat bread in the baga

[who eat their bread at an inn in the valley],

and come and lodge in the house of Rav

[and come to sleep in the beit-midrash].

When we measure

when measuring

their techum,

is it

from the house of Rav that we measure for them, or from the baga that we measure for them

[when measuring their Shabbat boundary, do we measure for them from the beit-midrash, since they sleep there, or from the valley, where they eat]?

He said to him,

Rav Sheshet:

We measure from the house of Rav

[we measure from the beit-midrash], because it is the place of their lodging!

And Rav Hiyya bar Avin challenges him:

But

one who comes to go outside the techum and

places his eruv

[an eruv of food, for the purpose of the techumim]

within two thousand cubits, and comes and sleeps in his house

[and returns to sleep in his house]—

we measure his techum from his eruv

[for we measure from the place where the eruv was placed].

We see that they follow the place of eating, and not the place of lodging?!

He said to him

Rav Sheshet [in the version of the Bah]:

In that case

[the placing of the eruv]

we are certain

what their principal place is,

whereas in this

[their lodging in the beit-midrash]

we are certain

what their principal place is, as he proceeds to explain.

In that case—

we are certain that if he could lodge there

more

it would be agreeable to him

[that if he could sleep at the place where he placed his eruv, it would be more agreeable to him], for he placed the eruv there for this purpose, since he wishes to go from there in the direction for which he placed the eruv.

Whereas in this—

we are certain that if they were to bring them bread to the house of Rav, it would be more agreeable to them

[that if they were to bring them bread to the beit-midrash, it would be more agreeable to them], for then they would not need to go to the valley. For they go to the valley only because they have there an “inn” that provides them with their food.

It is established for us that if there were two courtyards, one within the other, and there was an entrance between them, and the inhabitants of the inner courtyard customarily went out to the public domain by way of the outer courtyard—then, if there were many residents in the inner courtyard and they had not made an eruv among themselves, and they are forbidden to carry in their courtyard, they forbid the inhabitants of the outer courtyard, through their passage, to carry in the outer courtyard.

But if there was only one resident in the inner courtyard, who is permitted to carry in his place, he does not forbid the inhabitants of the outer courtyard, through his passage, to carry; as is explained in the Mishna below, on folio 75a, that a “foot” permitted in its place does not forbid through its passage outside its place. [And likewise above, on folio 66b.] Therefore there is room for doubt:

Rami bar Hama asked Rav Hisda: A father and his son

who dwell in the inner courtyard and eat, each one in another house, except that the son receives a portion from his father [Tosafot, Ritva].

Or

a teacher and his student

who dwell in the inner courtyard.

What is their law? Are they

like many

who dwell in the inner courtyard

considered,

and forbid the outer courtyard through their passage?

Or like individuals

in the inner courtyard

considered,

and do not forbid?

And this question depends on another question [Ritva]:

Whether

the father and his son, or the teacher and his student, require

the father and his son, or the teacher and his student

an eruv

between them [when there are no other residents with them], and consequently they are considered like many, and they forbid the outer courtyard if they did not make an eruv, according to the law of a foot forbidden in its place, which forbids through its passage outside its place.

Or they do not require an eruv

between them, and are considered like individuals.

And he further inquires: since an alleyway opening onto the public domain is not rendered permitted by a side-post and crossbeam, to permit carrying in it, unless two courtyards belonging to two houses opened onto the alleyway, there is room to ask:

Whether a father and his son, or a teacher and his student, are their courtyards considered separate courtyards, and therefore

their alleyway is rendered permitted by a side-post and crossbeam.

Or

their courtyards are considered one courtyard, and therefore

their

alleyway

is not rendered permitted by a side-post and crossbeam.

Rather, one must place at its entrance posts four handbreadths wide, according to the law of a courtyard, in order to permit carrying in their alleyway.

Rav Hisda said to him: You have learned them

the two questions:

1.

A father and his son, a teacher and his student, when there are no residents with them

others,

are like individuals, and do not need to make an eruv.

Accordingly, if they live in an inner courtyard, they are a “foot” permitted in its place, and they do not forbid the outer courtyard through their passage.

But if there are other residents with them, since these forbid, these also forbid, as we said above.

2.

And

nevertheless—

their alleyway is rendered permitted by a side-post and crossbeam!

For with regard to the rectification of an alleyway, they are considered two courtyards opening onto the alleyway, even though with regard to courtyard eruvs they do not need to make an eruv among themselves.

Mishna:

Five courtyards open into one another,

and open onto an alleyway:

1.

They made eruvs in the courtyards—

whether an eruv for each courtyard separately, or a joint eruv for all the courtyards by way of the opening between them, in order to carry from one to another—but

they did not participate in the alleyway

in order to carry from the courtyards into the alleyway, one may not rely on the courtyard eruv where a participation in the alleyway is required, and

they are permitted

to carry only

in the courtyards, but forbidden

to carry

in the alleyway.